Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 389 - AT - Income TaxEstimation of sale suppression on sale of liquor - Inflation of discount - Held that:- This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee might have given some discount. In the absence of any material like reference in tariff card or menu card, it cannot be ruled out that the assessee inflated the discount said to be given to corporate guests, walk in customers and happy hours discount, etc. In fact, Shri Raju, who is in-charge of Rohini International Bar, admitted before the authorities that the sale suppression was done from 5 to 6 years earlier. He has further admitted that bill books are destroyed and separate set of sale bills are prepared underlying the sale price. In view of this categorical statement, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the suppression of sale on liquor is confirmed and now what remains is the estimation of quantum of suppression of sale. The Assessing Officer totally rejecting the claim of the assessee regarding discount, estimated the suppression at 56.33%. The CIT(Appeals), however, estimated the same at 30%. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that by taking into consideration the nature of trade and material found during the course of survey operation and the statement recorded from the person in-charge of Bar, estimation of sale suppression at 26% would meet ends of justice. In other words, the sale suppression of liquor should be estimated at 26% instead of 56.33% estimated by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are modified and the Assessing Officer is directed to estimate the sale suppression on sale of liquor at Rohini International Bar at 26% instead of 56.33%. Suppression of lodge receipt at 208.84% - HUF status - CIT(A) restricting the addition to 50% of the estimation made by the AO - main contention of the assessee now before this Tribunal is that even though the lodge is situated in a prime locality of the city, 100% occupancy cannot be expected at every point of time - Held that:- This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that as rightly submitted by the Ld.counsel, 100% occupancy cannot be expected at every point of time. At the very same time, we can expect a reasonable rate of occupancy since the lodge is located at prime locality in the heart of the city. The fact that the assessee has suppressed the sale is established on the basis of the material found during the course of survey operation. In fact, the actual receipt was ₹ 7,27,979/-. However, the assessee has disclosed in the sheet, which was impounded, at ₹ 2,35,714/-. The CIT(Appeals), after taking into consideration the nature of business, has restricted the suppression of receipt from lodge at 50% of what was estimated by the Assessing Officer. In fact, the suppression was made during the entire period of business. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(Appeals) and accordingly the same is confirmed. Estimation of suppression of sale from Rohini Lodge Permit Room - Held that:- AO on the basis of the material found, estimated the suppression of sale at 47%. However, the CIT(Appeals) restricted the same to 30%. While considering an identical issue in the earlier part of this order, this Tribunal, after considering the price discount that would be given to the customers in happy hours, corporate guests and walk in customers, estimated the profit at 26%. For the very same reason, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that estimation of profit at 26% would meet ends of justice. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are modified and the Assessing Officer is directed to estimate 26% on suppression of liquor sales instead of 47%. Addition of ₹ 1 lakh as income from restaurant - Held that:- The assessee appears to have claimed before the Assessing Officer that the restaurant was closed three years back. But, the revenue authorities found the details of sale for the period April, 2007 to January, 2008 and the same disclose the sales at ₹ 9,40,300/-. Therefore, the claim of the assessee that the restaurant was closed three years back is totally contrary to what was found during the course of survey operation. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the addition of ₹ 1 lakh made by the Assessing Officer. Both the appeals of the Revenue and crossobjections of the assessee are partly allowed.
|